ILNews

Opinions June 12, 2013

June 12, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
John H. Mooney, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Joseph S. Mooney, Deceased v. Anonymous M.D. 4, Anonymous M.D. 5, and Anonymous Hospital
32A04-1208-CT-414
Civil tort. Reverses order dismissing with prejudice Mooney’s proposed complaint for damages in a medical malpractice action. The trial court did not have jurisdiction to dismiss under Trial Rule 41(E), and it abused its discretion when it dismissed the proposed complaint under I.C. 34-18-10-14.

Mark Kevin Liston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1207-CR-385
Criminal. Grants rehearing and reverses the trial judge’s rescission of the referee’s order granting Liston post-conviction relief. Remands for proceedings.

Shaun Wilkinson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

33A04-1209-CR-478
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felonies dealing in a schedule III controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a family housing unit.

Allen Stewart v. Jennifer Miller (NFP)

53A01-1212-PO-541
Protective order. Affirms order of protection issued at the request of Miller.

Robert O. Morris v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A04-1211-CR-571
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

Stanley B. Crumble a/k/a Melvin Coleman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1211-PC-487
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Tarrence Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1301-CR-5
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction.

E.W. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1211-JV-918
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication for committing what would be Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass if committed by an adult.

City of Jeffersonville, Indiana and City of Jeffersonville Sanitary Sewer Board v. Environmental Management Corporation (NFP)
10A01-1210-PL-485
Civil plenary. Reverses the trial court’s award of attorney fees in favor of Environmental Management Corporation and remands with instructions.

Tyrone Walker v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1211-CR-933
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of Q.R., J.B., and J.R. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
80A02-1211-JT-909
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Jawyan James Townes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1210-CR-441
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of marijuana.

Sherard Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1210-CR-794
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony fraud on a financial institution.

Edward T. Bronaugh v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1210-CR-832
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies battery and residential entry, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanors disorderly conduct and public intoxication and Class C misdemeanor public nudity.

Tracey B. Young v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1210-CR-525
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony and Class D felony criminal confinement, Class D felony strangulation and Class D felony domestic battery.


The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT